I think the issue was that they said either in delaying bringing him back, his deportation, or the understanding that he was a terrorist, they played no role. My concern with that—and this is why I'm asking you what your opinion is—is that given that the assessment of the information from the Syrian government was done by somebody with no torture experience; given the fact that there are reports from the Syrian government that on three separate occasions they said they didn't want Mr. Arar back; given the fact that CSIS was in this weird communication flow with the RCMP, where information was being leaked, and then the information seemed to continue to flow from CSIS to the RCMP and there didn't seem to be any discussion—and in fact yesterday they said there wasn't—about how the fact that the information that was flowing from CSIS to the RCMP was to be dealt with, what I was expecting yesterday, to be quite frank, was that they were sorry for any role they might have played, and that there were some areas where there were errors that might have delayed Maher Arar's return, and that for any role they may have played they were apologizing.
But they came out and said they had no role, though I think Justice O'Connor's report clearly identifies that there was a role. The reason that concerns me, and the reason it's important to me to ask you as a group that oversees them, is that if their belief is that nothing went wrong and that everything was done right and they did everything they could possibly do, how can we as a committee have any confidence that any changes will occur, if there's no responsibility taken for what has happened?
In that context, I'm asking whether you share the position of the director and the former director that they had zero responsibility for what happened.